Authorizing Military Force Against ISIS, Al Qaeda & the Taliban While Repealing Old AUMFs (S. Joint Res. 59)

What is S. Joint Res. 59?

(Updated July 18, 2019)

This joint resolution would authorize the use of military force (AUMF) against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and designated associated forces while repealing the existing AUMFs from 2001 and 2002 which have been applied to those conflicts. It would not authorize the use of force against any nation-state. If enacted, the legislation would satisfy the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to receive congressional consent for military operations lasting more than two months.

To designate a new associated force, the president would be required to report to Congress on all newly designated forces, the basis for those designations, and each new country in which military force will be used under the AUMF. The president would be able to immediately use force against such a group but would have to notify Congress within 48 hours, which would trigger a 60 window for Congress to fast-track legislation removing the authority to use force against that group.

The resolution would also establish a process for Congress to review the AUMF every four years without risking a lapse in authorization. On January 20, 2022 and every four years thereafter, the president would be required to submit to Congress a proposal to repeal, modify, or leave in place the AUMF. For 60 days after that date, legislation to repeal or modify the AUMF would qualify for expedited consideration in Congress to ensure the opportunity for a debate and vote if Congress wants to act.

As a joint resolution, this legislation would require approval by both chambers of Congress and the president’s signature to become law.

Argument in favor

The U.S. needs to reorient its fight against terror groups. By authorizing the use of force against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban and repealing the old post-9/11 and Iraq AUMFs the U.S. can refocus its counterterrorism operations to better reflect the current reality of the War on Terror.

Argument opposed

There’s no need for a new authorization for use of military force against these terror groups because those military operations are already covered by existing AUMFs. Alternatively, a new AUMF should be adopted that has a sunset clause, mandates congressional approval, and limits the scope of the conflict.

Impact

The U.S. military; Congress; and the President.

Cost of S. Joint Res. 59

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced this bill to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs with an updated AUMF against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS:

“For as long as I have helped lead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, beginning as ranking member in 2013, we have been engaged in a discussion over the 2001 AUMF, which provides the legal authority necessary to fight terror abroad. There have been a number of efforts over the years to update these authorities, and while there is still work ahead, I am pleased that we have reached an agreement on a  product for the committee to consider and that I hope will ultimately strike an appropriate balance of ensuring the administration has the flexibility necessary to win this fight while strengthening the rightful and necessary role of Congress.”

Original cosponsor Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) added:

“For too long, Congress has given Presidents a blank check to wage war. We’ve let the 9/11 and Iraq War authorizations get stretched to justify wars against multiple terrorist groups in over a dozen countries, from Niger to the Philippines. Our proposal finally repeals those authorizations and makes Congress do its job by weighing in on where, when, and with whom we are at war.”

Some senators have expressed opposition to this bill, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) who said:

“First, this new AUMF has no sunset clause — meaning it can be used indefinitely by President Trump and his successors to continue expanding the scope and geography of U.S. military action around the world… Further, and even more concerning, this legislation allows the President to unilaterally expand the scope of the authorization, both in the specific groups being targeted and in the countries in which the United State takes military action… The Senate should indeed debate a new AUMF, but it must be one that has built-in timelines, mandates congressional approval, and limits the scope of the conflict.”

This legislation has the support of five bipartisan cosponsors, including Kaine and Democratic Senators Chris Coons (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), and Republican Senators Jeff Flake (AZ) and Todd Young (IN).

Of Note: When the Obama administration first used military force against ISIS, it used the 2001 AUMF against terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks and “associated forces” as its legal justification. In December 2016, the Office of the President released a brief stating that the AUMF gives congressional authorization for military action against At Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups. The Trump administration has continued with that legal justification.

Media:

• Cosponsoring Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) Press Release
  
• Countable
  
• Roll Call
  
• Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Press Release (Opposed)